The Baystate Objectivist Archives

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Another Letter

Springfield City Councilor John Lysak

Good evening, Tom.

First, I would like to thank you for publishing my letter on your website. I know that you took a lot of heat for putting that out there, and I appreciate you giving me the chance to tell a small portion of my story.

Secondly, John is aware of the letter, and has responded to me, via a letter from his attorney Thomas Kenefick. The following is a quote from the letter:

"My client [John] has advised that your client has increased her virulent campaign against him in a number of ridiculous websites, viz, Tony Devine's Cosmos Report or Astronauts in Space. Apart from the bizarre nature of the website to which your client seems oddly attracted, she has made it her campaign to ventilate and/or publish my client's alleged abusive behavior towards her and the children (keeping in mind the parties have been separated for over a year) in the hope of causing him embarrassment and humiliation in the public sector. While I question the intellectual calculus of anyone who visits these blogs, nevertheless, it is embarrassing to my client not only because of its falsity but because of the continued vindictiveness and animus of your client towards mine which obviously must have an adverse impact on the children."

Tom, I'm telling you this because it was bloggers like you, Heather Brandon, and Bill Dusty that helped John's political career. He would be nowhere without the bloggers! When the mainstream media ignored our press releases, the bloggers were the only ones who would interview him and take his candidacy seriously. You (the bloggers and yourself) were the only ones to talk him up to the voters. I'm astounded that he would allow his attorney to say these things about people who were his friends. It was terribly unfair of John and his friends to criticize you. I imagine that one of those people was Peter Lyons, as he made nasty comments about me, and then also made nasty comments to my sister when she defended me.

Peter Lyons has to support John, because it was through his work on John's campaign that Peter became friends with Chris Asselin. Yes, John and Chris are good friends, and Peter currently works with Chris thanks to John's connection. In fact, my kids tell me how much they enjoy swimming in Chris's pool with the water slide. The very same pool that was partially funded by stolen monies from city residents. The whole thing is disgusting.

The rest of the letter is concerning John's wedding band. He gave it to my oldest daughter to wear on a necklace. She fell asleep on my bed while wearing it, and I asked her to take it off while she slept as I worried that she would choke on it (I do this myself). She has misplaced it. John's attorney is convinced that I stole it from her and pawned it for money. It's not true of course.

In another letter, John's attorney tries to say that I should lose custody because he believes that I'm practicing witchcraft, which is not condoned by John's conservative Pentacostal Christian faith.

This is just a sampling of what I've been through and am going through with this man. This is the sort of person who wants the voters in Ward 8 to trust him? If he will treat his wife, his children, and his friends in this manner, then there really is no one that he won't betray in his desire for political power. I hope that the voters in Ward 8 learn this before it is too late.

I saw John's ex at a Ramos rally the other night. I am so happy that she has switched sides and it working for the opposition. She was the brains behind his campaign last time and was wise enough to use the blogs to get his message out. With her on his side, Ramos cannot lose!

I am Priscilla Lysak, and I can assure you that I have not attended any event for Orlando Ramos. I have nothing against Orlando or his candidacy, but I am focused on raising my children, my job, my friends, and my upcoming court battles. I have spoken with Orlando a few times and I wish him the best, but I am not working for him.

I am not Priscilla Lysak, nor do I play her on TV. I want to thank Tommy Devine for printing Ms. Lysak's letters. Prior to reading her letters I was unsure of who to support in the upcoming election. I am no longer unsure. It is definitely Mr. Ramos, and I have already made a donation to his campaign because of Mr. Lysak's behavior.

LarryK4: I can think of another couple of people who should probably also remember that rule :-\

Not to put a fly in everyone's ointment, but does anyone reading this post (and the previous "letter" post) have any idea what they are talking about? I've read two letters filled with accusations, with not an ounce of evidence in either case. Is it really that easy to convince you people of someone's guilt? A simple accusation?

Priscilla, I honestly do wish you the best and I hope you and your family are okay, but your strategy of using Tommy to promote your accusations of abuse are not exactly putting the "class" badge on you. If you have a legitimate case of abuse against John, then the courtroom is the proper place to present it. If not, I honestly believe you're hurting your case with these National Inquirer-type "gotcha" letter releases.

If John is as bad as you accuse him of being, show us some evidence of this. Otherwise, you may be costing a person a means of his livelihood and corrupting his reputation. I believe that's called libel, and I believe that's prosecutable.

'In another letter, John's attorney tries to say that I should lose custody because he believes that I'm practicing witchcraft, which is not condoned by John's conservative Pentacostal Christian faith.'

I'm sure Gluttony and Adultry are against the Conservative Pentacostal Christian Faith as well... god he's a fuc**** loser.

Mr. Dusty: Mr. Lysak should have come out with a statement by now. His silence is deafening. At LEAST you would agree that the Police department should be looking into the allegations regaring his girlfriend. Or are you blinded by an apparent fondness (or perhaps friendship?) for My Lysak. I see not even the question of the allegation regarding the job has been mentioned on your blog and yet there is a story of some imbecile threatening to sue for not getting on the ballot.

Yes, I have read and even thought long and hard about Ms. Lysak's letters. There are some major unanswered questions that neither Mr. Lysak nor his defenders has felt fit to answer in any way, shape, or form. To wit, his relationship with Ms. Rivera and her job working for the SPD.

The unanswered questions boil down to:

1. Does or did Ms. Rivera have a relationship with John Lysak?

2. Does Ms. Rivera work for the SPD?

3. What are the job qualifications for Ms. Rivera's job?

4. Does Ms. Rivera meet or exceed *all* of them?

What are the answers to these questions? Why hasn't Mr. Lysak or his lawyer addressed this issue? His failure to do so lends credence to what Ms. Lysak is saying.

Well Mr. Dusty, you know what is going on in Springfield. Can you answer any of the questions?

Oh, and for the record, I am not Priscilla Lysak. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I have never met her in my life.

Every day, people with undesirable genetic qualities are breeding in Springfield.

It's called dysgenics. It doesn't matter if it's FAT people or people with low IQ's. It's happening every damn day in Springfield. And cities like Springfield are sliding our nation into a second world nation status.

The USA is now Argentina, from the perspective of the desirable genetic quality of our population.

So, all the blogs and South End opportunists pretending to be motivated to create a better world are just hypocrites seeking to fleece you and the FAT dysgenic people in Springfield. Because they have no more interest living in Springfield than the wife beaters, drug dealers and politicians

After reading the link on motherinlaw stories I started searching for other sites she posts on and I found her posting again under teachermom on Divorcesupport.com. Here is an outtake of one of her posts followed by a link.

"I'm sorry to hear about the people that you have treated. And yes, a certain amount of personal work should be done before engaging in any interpersonal activity involving sex or dating.

I will tell you though, that my FWBs were a tremendous help in my recovering from divorce. When your husband leaves you for someone who is 10 years older, but 60 lbs lighter and able to have fun and drink all the time because her kids are grown, it hurts. You wonder what it is about yourself that so disgusted your husband that he had to go outside of your marriage to find someone he connected with and was attracted to. Nevermind that I put on this extra 60 lbs having his babies, and that I couldn't party or wear the latest clothing styles because I felt that paying bills and taking care of our family was a priority!

And don't even get me started on what the media puts out there as "attractive" and "dateable". In all of the movies that you may see about dating, the women are all white, thin, tall (but not too tall), and wealthy enough to afford designer clothes. She had to follow stupid, arcane dating rules, such as "don't have sex until X time has passed" or "withhold sex to get (some material goods) out of it". If these women had been divorced, they either had no or one kid, and that kid disappears as soon as the dating stuff happens. All of this shows to women that in order to be successful in dating, you had to be the holy grail: white, rich, thin, and with a nanny on-tap to take care of that kid! No way someone like me: white/hispanic, overweight, childless, and poor, could ever hope to succeed in finding a new partner, unless he was some other poor slob or a child molester.

So, I decided that I was NOT going to get a serious partner. I decided that, inspite of my dating "flaws", I was going to go out and have a good time. And I was gonna have sex if I felt like it. With 4 kids, it's not like I could pretend that I was pristine or a virgin.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that even with my flaws, men found me desirable! Sexy even. Who me? Frumpy, mommy me? Yup, they did. After seeing a few of them, I felt damn good about myself. I realized that all of the negative sh!t that my STBX said about my weight, clothes, hair, and personality, were because he was weak, he felt badly about his appearance and personality, and he was putting that onto me to make himself feel better. This is a man who, in our family, his word was God's. It was nice finding out that this oppressive, cruel "god" was wrong!

Was I unconventional? Yup, I sure was. Was my way for everyone? No; there are some people who cannot have sex without emotion, and those people would get badly hurt doing what I did.

But do I regret that I did it? H3LL NO, LOL! And if I meet a guy who decides to dump me for it, that's fine. As much as some men don't want to date "sluts", this slut doesn't want to date someone who is close-minded and lives by a gender-based double-standard. But he's the one missing out. Especially on the chance for a killer BJ, sex on a lake like a teenager, or a hot 3some...

Actually, that other post on the divorce site doesn't sound like a vengeance post. It sounds like dating advice for divorced people, and about how the old rules of dating don't apply in our modern world. Which is a fair view point, but has nothing to do with the issues that she is talking about now. It does sound like John did mistreat her though.

Why would she admit to speaking with Ramos? That's the real story here in that Ramos is using the jaded ex wife of his opponent to advance his chances to win office. How low can one go? After this admission nothing she says can be trusted or "divorced" from petty political mudslinging.

No, it does NOT sound as if she is out for vengeance. It just makes it clearer that her ex-husband, was cheating on her, while they were married. Remember, the quoted post was from last December, over six months before her letter appeared in Mr. Devine's blog.

It is very simple. All Mr. Lysak and Ms. Rivera have to do is testify, under oath, that they had no sort of personal relationship while Mr. Lysak and Ms. Lysak were still a couple. But, they need to do it under oath, where there will be penalties for perjury.

This is a pretty black and white situation. Either Mr. Lysak was involved with Ms. Rivera or not. Given the history of American politicians for just the last decade, on all sides of the political spectrum, it will be no surprise to anyone that Ms. Lysak is telling the truth. But, just because other politicians have cheated on their wives, does not mean that we have to vote for them. If a man cannot be honest with his wife, he will not be honest with the people who elected him.

To date, neither Mr. Lysak, Ms. Rivera, or his attorney have denied Ms. Lysak's claims that Mr. Lysak and Ms. Rivera had a relationship. If Ms. Lysak is incorrect it is very easy to refute her claim. But, as other posters have mentioned, the silence is deafening.

Clearly Ms. Lysak has failed in every aspect of her life and is now resorting to Internet forums and blogs in a last ditch effort for some sort of attention. Everyone has written her off except for Ramos who is looking for her to help sling mud against his opponent. Nobody believes what she has to as evidenced by the lack of attention paid by the legitimate media. I truly pity her and hope she gets the help she so desperately needs.

I am seeing a fascinating pattern here. I see people asking again and again about the truth behind John Lysak and his relationship with Luz Rivera while John and Priscilla were still a couple. I have seen some evidence that Priscilla's statements about John Lysak and Luz Rivera's relationship are true. I have seen NO denials of this from John Lysak or his supporters - just nasty comments about Priscilla Lysak, or attempts to avoid answering the question, or both.

Given John Lysak and his supporters failure to refute Priscilla Lysak's claims about John Lysak's relationship with Luz Rivera, even when his lawyer writes to her lawyer on other issues, one can only conclude Priscilla is telling the truth when she says he was cheating on her with Luz Rivera. That being said, this puts John Lysak in a tough spot. He could have,when this all broke back on July 9, confessed to the truth about his extramarital affair, and things might have or might not blown over. But he didn't. And now it is over three weeks later. If he confesses, especially after painting himself as a religious man, people will know him as a hypocrite. If he denies it, and there is any proof he is lying, he will be in more trouble, up to and possibly including charges of perjury. All he can do is twist in the wind and hope the issue will be dropped - just as he and his minions are urging on this blog!

John Lysak - come out of where you are hiding and tell the truth. The voters, people you claim to represent, are asking you questions. You need to answer them.

Because in Priscilla Lysak's original letter, available on this blog, about John Lysak, she wrote about John Lysak's abuse of herself and their children, his extra-marital affair with Luz Rivera, and his getting Ms. Rivera a job with the Springfield PD. The letter from the attorney in response makes rude comments about readers of this blog, nasty comments about Ms. Lysak, and nowhere in any shape or form addresses Priscilla Lysak's comments about John Lysak's relationship with Luz Rivera.

When the lawyer is writing to Ms. Lysak, on behalf of his client, it would have been very easy to refute the relationship claims. The fact that he did not is extremely telling.

Especially since, in another letter, John Lysak's attorney states that John Lysak is a practicing Pentacostal Christian. Last time I checked, adultery was not condoned by the bible or the Pentacostal faith. John Lysak cannot be a good Christian, as he claims, and an adulterer at the same time.

Come on Mr. Lysak. Open your mouth and let us hear it from your lips. What is the truth regarding your relationship with Luz Rivera?

To the poster regarding Priscilla Lysak's personal life, I have the following questions.

1. Is Priscilla Lysak an elected official?

2. Did the instances you refer to happen while she and John Lysak were still a couple?

3. Is she claiming to be a Pentacostal Christian?

Unless all three are true, your comments are not in least relevant to John Lysak's behavior.

And, once again, we get an attack on Priscilla Lysak without an answer to our questions about John Lysak. How long can this go on? We are at over three weeks already without an answer. Will he be silent for four weeks, five weeks, or more? How long can he refuse to answer these very simple questions?

Each time the original questions are left unanswered, but Priscilla Lysak is attacked, the pattern becomes clearer and clearer, and the truth of John Lysak's behavior becomes more and more obvious. Abuser cannot stop abusing.

Nobody cares about ms. lysak's social life nor John's lack of testicles.

What matters here is there are serious accusations against an elected official (both personal and public) which should be fully investigated. I'm sure one or two of his kids could testify in court that the abuse against them happened. as for the police job, the PD is filled with hacks, probably some that were dating people who got them the job in the first place. Luz's qualifications ought to be looked into and I believe both mr devine & dusty should be the ones investigating the matter.

As for john being a conservative pentecostal... I agree with a previous statement that adultry & gluttony are surely against thei faith.

Wheres the real news? A corrupt politician? An abused ex-wife? Well that just sounds like normal day to day events in our country. Who gives a shit? This site has become a circus full of clowns. I had respect for this site and Tommy Devine. Had being the key word.

'Wheres the real news? A corrupt politician? An abused ex-wife? Well that just sounds like normal day to day events in our country. Who gives a shit? This site has become a circus full of clowns. I had respect for this site and Tommy Devine. Had being the key word.'

John (or possible friend of john), just because he posted a letter exposing the real you doesn't give you the right to lose respect for a man who is merely reporting the news.

Thanks for your support but I am not reporting on this story and don't intend to. Ms. Lysak's letters have been printed verbatim and with no commentary from me other than entitling them "A Letter" and "Another Letter." I have taken no side in this controversy.

What I have done is what I've been doing since Jay Libardi and I launched the print precursor to this blog, The Baystate Objectivist, in 1991: I have always had the standing invitation to anyone who has a story to tell about public people and public policy, who are being censored elsewhere, to come to me and I will see to it that your story is told.

Numerous people have taken advantage of that invitation over the years, and Ms. Lysak is simply the latest one.

"That letter is a riot, can't they even get my first name right? If there is more to that letter that is relevant, yes by all means forward it to me. Otherwise I would like to print your comments above, if only to bring to light the very good points you made. Despite a few insults thrown our way by cowardly anonymous posters, most of the feedback has been supportive. l predict that you will be fully vindicated in the end. Best wishes to you and the kids."

I appreciate that you have allowed Priscilla Lysak's letters to appear in your blog. For democracy to flourish, everyone needs an opportunity to be heard, not just those with money, power, or influence. You are doing liberty in general, not just in this case, a great service.

However, I do not understand, and this is not intended to be an attack on you - you have done things that others would not, why you will not investigate Ms. Lysak's claims regarding Mr. Lysak and Ms. Rivera. It is not taking sides to report the truth.

I would not want you to report your opinions, just facts. For instance, does Ms. Rivera work for the SPD? Did she get her job after Mr. Lysak became an elected official for Springfield? Does Mr. Lysak and Ms. Rivera have a relationship? If so, did it start prior to Mr. and Ms. Lysak break up? There are more unanswered questions, but you get the idea.

Finding out answers to these questions is not taking sides - it is reporting on facts. After all, until an unbiased person such as yourself, reports on what facts they can find, how can anyone truly know what is true in this situation?

Again, thank you for all your hard work. I really do appreciate what you have done, not just in this case, but in general, and hope you continue the good work.

And, as I am sure you realize, I am not Priscilla Lysak, John Lysak, Luz Rivera, or anyone associated with them.

Ha! Well I guess I should have been more specific and said I haven't publicly taken a position on this controversy.

Obviously I believed that Pricilla's accusations were credible enough to print or I wouldn't have done so. My invitation to whistleblowers is not a blank check to say anything you want, some verification has to be provided and she had the legal documents to prove that she was willing stand publicly behind her charges. The rest is for the voters to decide.

So yes she has my sympathy, and so does John to some extent. Politicians get divorced all the time, and it is usually handled in a manner that causes few public waves.

I'm disappointed that John allowed this situation to deteriorate to this point. He had a golden opportunity to put this matter to rest as soon as it was raised, but through his silence he has allowed the controversy to fester, and rumors spread in silence are often worse than the truth.

The first rule of containing a scandal is to take control of the flow of facts by divulging everything as quickly as possible. As the saying goes, "It's the cover-up that kills you." If this controversy ends up destroying John's political career, it won't be his ex-wife or this blog that did it. He did it to himself by squandering the opportunity he had to use full disclosure to put it behind him.

Unless of course he can't say anything because everything his wife is saying is true, in which case he deserves neither his position of political trust or our sympathy.

OK, Mr. Lysak, it is now four weeks since the original post and you are still refusing to answer, or even post under your own name, instead of hiding under anonymous. When are you going to give us answers to your ex's claims? You must realize that your failure to say they are false just shows that they are true.

Mr. Lysak not responding doesn't validate any of Ms. Lysaks claim, it just demonstrates that Mr. Lysak has nothing to prove to anyone and has more class than to feed into Ms. Lysak's self pity. Amazing enough, once Councilor Lysak becomes popular with his constituents and the media, Ms. Lysak comes out with these outrages claims. Why wait almost 2 years later of the seperation? It's called the "MAD WOMAN" cause she's not by his side at his high peek and close to election time. A blind man can see that! I hope she doesn't have a man in her life, I cannot imagine what he would feel finding out how very dedicated she is in destroying her ex-husband.

Once again John Lysak or his minions attack his ex, Priscilla Lysak, and totally ignore the issues of corruption - getting his girl friend a job for which she doesn't qualify. Plus the issue of John Lysak claiming to be this devote Christian - then cheats on his wife.

We know it is a lot easier to attack the ex then tell the truth, but the truth is what the voters are asking for. This issue isn't going to go away. And the longer it takes the truth to come out, the worst it gets. Just ask Weiner, or Edwards, or Gary Hart, or Richard Nixon, to name a few politicians whose political careers were sunk not just because of what they did, but by their attempts to cover up.

And before you try and blame Priscilla Lysak for this post, no I am not her, nor her friend, nor a relative. I am, however, a voter who is waiting for John Lysak to man up and finally tell the truth.

I wonder if the blogger took away the "anonymous" option for commenting if all of a sudden the negative comments on Priscilla would disappear.

Mr Lysak would not be able to hide his comments anymore under "anonymous".

Read the comments about her, most of these are from Mr. Lysak himself, you see Mr. Lysak HAS responded to these letters, by coming on her and attacking his wife, you can see first hand how he treated her, first hand...it is all right here.

Mr. Lysak has commented the cowardly way. Responded the cowardly way.

So there you have it,"Vote abusive coward for your next election- and keep his hootchi mama employed" Doesn't sound like something I would willingly vote for.

Quick question, how come we are supposed to believe it's John Lysak when it's anon? But because you say you're not Priscilla, we have to believe you. Have you ever though maybe people are defening him because they like him?

Someone asked why we should believe that the Anonymous posters that support Ms. Lysak are who they claim to be, while the Anonymous posters who support Mr. Lysak are in fact Mr. Lysak himself.

I think the answer to that is in the overall tone of the posts. The pro-Priscilla faction is, for the most part, asking John to publicly come out with a statement about whether or not he got a patronage job for Luz Rivera with the SPD. The pro-John faction makes nasty personal attacks about Priscilla.

The personal attacks, from people or a person who seems particularly passionate about what amounts to a municiple election, lend people to think that this poster is someone who personally gains from John getting his seat, and also seems to get off on attacking Priscilla, while under the cover of Anonymous. And who is the best suspect? John Lysak himself.